ROBERT MELTSNER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONN., C. CLEMENTS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., AND EMILE F. POERTNER, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence of negligence to preclude a directed verdict and that the trial court did not err in admitting the insurance policy into evidence due to waiver.
Appellant sued and received an adverse final judgment after the trial court directed a verdict against him. He appealed, arguing the court erred in di…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Meltsner appeals from an adverse final judgment rendered after the trial court directed a verdict against him at the conclusion of all the evidence.
Appellant argues several different points for reversal but we find it necessary to discuss only two of these points.
We find that there was sufficient evidence presented which would preclude the trial court from directing a verdict on the issue of negligence under Count Two of the amended complaint. National State Bk. of Nwk. v. Robert Richter Hotel, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So.2d 321; Chowning v. Pierce, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 42; and Chilton v. Dockstader, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 281. We must, therefore, reverse on this point.
Appellant claims that error was committed when the trial court admitted into evidence an insurance policy which had not been countersigned by a local agent in accordance with § 624.0224(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
While this is an accurate statement of the law in Florida, it overlooks the fact that such signature may be waived. See Royal Exchange Assurance of London v. Almon, 202 Ala. 374, 80 So. 456 (1918); Rogers v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 145 Ga. 570, 89 S. E. 700 (1916); State ex rel. Chorn v. Hudson, Mo.App. 1920, 222 S.W. 1049; 29 Am. Jur. Insurance § 214 and 17 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 9442. We find that under the facts herein there was a waiver of the requirement that the insurance policy be countersigned by a local producing agent and hold that no error was committed by permitting the written insurance policy into evidence.
We have examined appellant’s other points for reversal and find them to be without merit.
The order admitting the written insurance policy into evidence is affirmed. The final judgment rendered on the directed verdict is reversed as to the negligence issue presented under Count Two of the amended complaint and remanded for determination by a jury of the issue of negligence, if any.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolfe v. AETNA Ins. Co. & Ricker-Horn, Inc., 436 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…that all dealings were through that [*1000] agency. Ricker’s failure to countersign the endorsement does not, as a matter of law, invalidate it, because the absence of a countersignature may be waived, Meltsner v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 233 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), and does not, in and of itself, control the effectiveness of the insurance. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Veenschoten, 272 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Agreeing that the absence of a countersignature ma…
Authorities Cited
- Chowning v. Pierce, 174 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Chilton v. Dockstader, 126 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- The Nat'l State Bank OF Newark v. Robert Richter Hotel, Inc., 186 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)